I don’t believe crypto’s are at a stage where they should be used as an alternative to fiat in respect to using them to analyse how much funding is needed in a long term project. If we asked those making project proposal’s they will have conducted their costings in fiat.
Fiat is a far better tool for that right now (and probably will be for a while). Forcing it through with XEM or any other cryptocurrency for ideological reasons is a pretty bad idea imo.
I think it is irrelevant that the communty fund it is drawn from is in XEM when the majority of spending will be in fiat and those being paid in XEM will be accepting it because it holds a sufficient value in fiat. If a project requests 1% of the total Community Fund in 2015 and it had a value of $200,000, should the exact same project implemented in 2017 request 1% if it then had a value of $2,000,000?
I also don’t see how it always being that way is a reason to avoid change. If anything blockchain fights against keeping old out of date methods the same.
I don’t have the power to change the rules, nor did I suggest changing them for BlockGrain. I asked how they would proceed in 2 circumstances which could easily happen and would both negatively affect the NEM community. One would also jeopardise the BlockGrain project.
I also don’t see a reason why BlockGrain couldn’t add extra stipulations to their proposal if it appeased some community members concerns, it could secure them the extra support they require to fund the project.
I think they’re valuable questions in the context of this proposal and it also brings up a debate about changing the way these proposals are run. In fairness to BlockGrain I bought up the same questions to another community project I won’t name here, and I will continue to do so with other projects.
You’re a great community member KingCole, but I think you’re off base here.
I look forward to BlockGrains reply and a better way of structuring future ‘Community Fund’ project proposals.